I felt the project was a good idea. This sort of rail infrastructure is commonplace in Europe. Having previously worked in the industry for over 30 years I was quite excited by it although it meant the distruction of Euston an area I worked in.
Speedwise our rail is shameful compared to Europe. There is also an environmental benefit in quicker more connected railways should have led to less internal UK flights.
Therefore I am disappointed and feel it makes us look shambolic.
Had London to Birmingham been the only objective then the project was pointless and a waste of money. This is one of the few journeys where you have a choice as the Marylebone line provides a cheaper alternative to Euston. Anyone who travels on HS1 knows the frustration of how trains slow down east of Ashford.
My criticism is that the northern leg wasn't built first. It does seem shameful that you can now reach Paris quicker than Edinburgh.
In terms of priorities, I don't see this as an either or. We need better connectivity in the north but ditching HS2 means the north won't get some of the economic benefits that London can offer.
This is the point I was making far less succinctly and articulately further up. Was a huge tactical error spending all the money on the London-Birmingham section first where travel is perfectly adequate already. Should have spent the early money where it will deliver maximum ROI
Why did it need to go via Birmingham? Trains are pretty quick between London and Birmingham. It needed to go straight from London up the middle of the country to Manchester with spur lines to Leeds and Sheffield IMO - one of which ideally would carry onto Newcastle and the North-East then Scotland thus providing an alternative to internal flights between Manchester/Newcastle/Edinburgh and London.
Just looked at a map and it's pretty difficult to get to Manchester without passing close to Birmingham!
A direct high speed line linking London and the North would shadow the m1 past Luton and up to Leicester/Derby then spur left to Manchester and right to Sheffield/Leeds/Newcastle.
I wonder how Rishi will view his decision in 30 years time, as he sits on the balcony of his Santa Monica penthouse, gazing out over the Pacific Ocean.
The project would've been completed, it would have been a fantastic infrastructure benefit to the country and a legacy for himself to enjoy. As it stands, all he'll have is the memory of his conference speech, where he reeled out a load of party pleasing alternative speil - most of which he admitted (to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2) were illustrative examples of what could / maybe / possibly / be done.
I assume the line was to run through home county shires for reasons that suited those constituencies, but when there was a prospect of serving poorer more industrialised regions it has been scrapped. Much better to do a rail line than building a Nuclear Powered submarine in terms of spending, but Old Oak Common? Really? That feels like Eurostar starting and finishing at Ebbsfleet. If my long term home had been compulsorily purchased for this failing project I would be doing my nut more that I usually do on a daily basis.
What a strange assumption. Why would anyone want a noisy railway running through their areas with no stations between Old Oak Common and B'ham airport? What benefits to they get? There was massive opposition in those areas to HS2 and one of the reasons for the costs overruns was that the opposition forced the railway tunnel under areas of outstanding national beauty (especially the Chilterns).
I assumed there would be stations on the route to serve local communities. Two or three anyway.
You have completely missed the point of HS2. The rail services on the existing lines however would/should improve due to the increased capacity.
- What did you understand to have been the main benefit of HS2 as an infrastructure project? (no "right" "wrong", just your spontaneous current perception of what it is/was about
Primarily capacity on the WCML and improved interconnectivity between Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield which is currently dire.
- how do you feel about the latest decision to cut back the project and why?
It's a national disgrace to be honest. Not just to scrap it but the original plan, the PR, the building it backwards, I could go on.
- how do you see the UK's transport situation overall and what do you think the priorities should be?
If we are talking trains (and who doesn't want to talk trains) Intercity connections between cities. Part of the Leeds, and by default Sheffield, line to Nottingham is single track! As an example. Still 200 years later no one has built a railway between Leeds and Manchester.
Yes very Leeds centric but as someone that travels between "big" cities for work, if its not London, or via London, its awful.
Another real life example is its quicker and cheaper to get to to Cardiff, from Leeds, by flying via Amsterdam or Dublin.
If we are talking more generally integrate it so the buses leave when the train arrives etc.
- What did you understand to have been the main benefit of HS2 as an infrastructure project? (no "right" "wrong", just your spontaneous current perception of what it is/was about
Capacity is the key benefit. The additional speed is just a byproduct of modern technology. It annoys me when people say "we're spending all this money just to get to Birmingham 20 minutes quicker", as if the solution is to build a cheaper railway using 1900s standards.
- how do you feel about the latest decision to cut back the project and why?
Short sighted. It would have become an indispensable item of transportation infrastructure. We've already spent millions preparing for it - might as well make use of that sunk cost.
- how do you see the UK's transport situation overall and what do you think the priorities should be?
In London it's fantastic. UK-wide it is starting to feel a bit archaic compared to our European brothers. I wouldn't complain too much though. I live in Canada right now and the public transport here is almost non-existent.
I think that the main presented argument that it was about increased capacity is probably right but there is a bigger reason...
It is a huge vanity project. Everyone from Government ministers, to construction companies to individual workers wants to work on something spectacularly big. There's a lot of kudos in it. HS2 was widely cited as the biggest infrastructure project in Europe. That's what was wanted, a project to boast about, a project for a project's sake. Anyone who's worked in the north, however, will know that the big transport issue isn't how to get from north to south, it's how to get around while you're in the north. Indeed making it easier to get from north to south may well create a further drain on investment and skills from the north to the capital. There are dozens of potential projects that should have taken precedence over HS2. For my money, upgrading the laughably named Trans Pennine Express should have been the top priority.
Decision to cut back the project
That's a tough question. I don't actually think it should have been started in the first place. At least, not whilst there were more important things to do and not with such poor regard for wildlife.
Once it had been started though, it probably wasn't worth stopping. My worry here, aside from the work that's been done and is now wasted, is what happens when there's major infrastructure projects in the future. I think what the decision to stop will do is increase prices in the future, because those investing and working on such projects will seek greater financial gain and guarantees of payment should the projects get stopped.
Having said that, the idea to terminate the southern end at Old Oak Common is utter madness. If that's the best we were going to get, perhaps it was right to stop.
UK's transport situation overall
For the most part it's pretty dire. Transport is too expensive, too slow, too dirty, generally uncoordinated and very bad for the environment.
Profiteers have been allowed ownership and/or control of big chunks of infrastructure and are seemingly more interested in milking the wallets of travellers, be they private drivers or passengers on public transport, than providing a service.
There are some positives, Cross-rail and some of the city tram systems come to mind.
Priorities
There have been lots of good ideas on here already; I was particularly impressed with the list that Chizz came up with. I'd suggest the following:
Upgrade existing routes - I'd start with TPE as mentioned above, but there are dozens of routes that could be improved.
Integrate timetables to minimise wait times
Invest in maglev technology
Investigate the possibility of Ro/Ro trains that could take road vehicles on major chunks of their journeys. Difficult to coordinate because of the diversity of road routes, but not impossible and if managed properly would make a major improvement to road usage.
Build luggage hubs for London Airports (possibly for regional airports too) so that instead of each passenger picking their bags up at the airport and struggling with them through the city, their bags are automatically taken to one of several hubs conveniently located at central places in the city.
I think that the main presented argument that it was about increased capacity is probably right but there is a bigger reason...
It is a huge vanity project. Everyone from Government ministers, to construction companies to individual workers wants to work on something spectacularly big. There's a lot of kudos in it. HS2 was widely cited as the biggest infrastructure project in Europe. That's what was wanted, a project to boast about, a project for a project's sake. Anyone who's worked in the north, however, will know that the big transport issue isn't how to get from north to south, it's how to get around while you're in the north. Indeed making it easier to get from north to south may well create a further drain on investment and skills from the north to the capital. There are dozens of potential projects that should have taken precedence over HS2. For my money, upgrading the laughably named Trans Pennine Express should have been the top priority.
Decision to cut back the project
That's a tough question. I don't actually think it should have been started in the first place. At least, not whilst there were more important things to do and not with such poor regard for wildlife.
Once it had been started though, it probably wasn't worth stopping. My worry here, aside from the work that's been done and is now wasted, is what happens when there's major infrastructure projects in the future. I think what the decision to stop will do is increase prices in the future, because those investing and working on such projects will seek greater financial gain and guarantees of payment should the projects get stopped.
Having said that, the idea to terminate the southern end at Old Oak Common is utter madness. If that's the best we were going to get, perhaps it was right to stop.
UK's transport situation overall
For the most part it's pretty dire. Transport is too expensive, too slow, too dirty, generally uncoordinated and very bad for the environment.
Profiteers have been allowed ownership and/or control of big chunks of infrastructure and are seemingly more interested in milking the wallets of travellers, be they private drivers or passengers on public transport, than providing a service.
There are some positives, Cross-rail and some of the city tram systems come to mind.
Priorities
There have been lots of good ideas on here already; I was particularly impressed with the list that Chizz came up with. I'd suggest the following:
Upgrade existing routes - I'd start with TPE as mentioned above, but there are dozens of routes that could be improved.
Integrate timetables to minimise wait times
Invest in maglev technology
Investigate the possibility of Ro/Ro trains that could take road vehicles on major chunks of their journeys. Difficult to coordinate because of the diversity of road routes, but not impossible and if managed properly would make a major improvement to road usage.
Build luggage hubs for London Airports (possibly for regional airports too) so that instead of each passenger picking their bags up at the airport and struggling with them through the city, their bags are automatically taken to one of several hubs conveniently located at central places in the city.
@Kap10 Transport in London is absolutely shocking in terms of comfort, price, quality and availability compared to the vast majority of major cities. It’s an absolute embarrassment.
I wonder how Rishi will view his decision in 30 years time, as he sits on the balcony of his Santa Monica penthouse, gazing out over the Pacific Ocean.
The project would've been completed, it would have been a fantastic infrastructure benefit to the country and a legacy for himself to enjoy. As it stands, all he'll have is the memory of his conference speech, where he reeled out a load of party pleasing alternative speil - most of which he admitted (to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2) were illustrative examples of what could / maybe / possibly / be done.
I think in 30 years time, Rishi, Elon, King Charles and all the billionaires will be living on the moon watching earth burn!
The HS2 in its original form with line to Leeds and Manchester was primarily not to reduce journey time although currently our railways are third world for speed but to relieve pressure on existing lines and enable essential business trips to (sniggers) to The Northern Powerhouse. That’s my view and one that fully supported the project.
As soon as the Leeds arm was cancelled it diminished the purpose of HS2. Manchester and Leeds are the two biggest business cities in the north. Isolating one made no sense. The cancellation of The Manchester line has the same effect on Manchester and reinforces the perception of the north south divide.
Our railways are in comparison to our European competitors appalling. Slow, old and totally disjointed. The north suffers the most and east west journeys are a joke. HS2 should have been completed to its original plan although started in the north going south not the other way around. The newly proposed upgrading of transport in the north is just a re announcement of projects that were promised and never delivered.
I have always been against the project for the reasons that have panned out. However, I do feel we have gone so far down the road (or tracks) that we have to continue as there obviously will be benefits.
Our high speed rail network needed HS2, 3, 4 and 5 in order to bring us into competitiveness with our European rivals. Decades of non investment and incompetence.
Thanks everyone for your responses, not least from those with relevant professional expertise. That's a bonus, although a fairly common one on Charlton Life. Ask nicely and you can get high quality advice on just about anything .
Reading through all the responses as if they were focus group transcripts, I am surprised about one thing. The vast majority of you already understand more or less that the main reason to build HS2 is, or was, to boost capacity, and most of you have a good idea of what that means and why it's a problem currently. It's a surprise because a major criticism voiced of the project is that "it was originally sold on speed". Certainly I've seen lots of evidence of that on social media and in the comments sections, even in the FT, where you find a lot of comments about "all that money just to get business people to Birmingham 15 minutes quicker" followed by the occasional attempt from someone to explain the capacity objective.
However the difference here partly reflects the fact that it isn't really a focus group. Properly set up, a focus group consists of a random sample from a cross-section of the population; most of you though have answered because the topic interests you in some way, and that in turn means you've at least read a lot about it. If YouGov polled you guys for their tracker study, above, the results would be significantly different.
So my working assumption - which I'd welcome your opinion on - is that the negative poll numbers are indeed driven by people who have never really understood the "capacity" rationale. And I am not surprised they have not, because it has not been properly explained to them. That in turn is because "capacity" doesn't readily convert into snappy soundbites for lazy politicians or snappy headlines for lazy politicians; whereas "speed" does, oh yes, "400kms/hour, have that, you Frogs" . So when people have absorbed "speed" as the main rationale, and then they see the costs apparently ballooning, and ancient forest apparently being cut down, that translates into negative polling numbers.
Do you think that is a fair assessment of what has brought public opinion to where it is (or at least wehre it was in May according to YouGov)? And am I right in thinking that there has been no highly visible effort to explain the real problem of capacity, either by HS2Ltd, or government ministers? That's currently my take on it, although I'm not suggesting that everything would be fine and dandy if only there had been a better communications strategy. I don't believe that, and not just because a couple of you have been kind enough to share some pro insights by direct message outlining a catalogue of cock-ups in various aspects of the project. But as I learnt years ago in advertising, if the general public misunderstand the message you sent out, it is your fault, not theirs.
Anyway I hope the thread rolls on, I'm sure there is more controversy to come... we've proved to admin that we can do it Anyone with professional insights to DM me with, will be much appreciated!
When the capacity argument is raised the government counter by saying Covid has changed train usage - which it has. My question to anyone who knows is - how has Covid changed the usage of Manchester to/from London ? I wonder whether, due to the capacity issue, Manchester to/from London travel has changed much at all.
When the capacity argument is raised the government counter by saying Covid has changed train usage - which it has. My question to anyone who knows is - how has Covid changed the usage of Manchester to/from London ? I wonder whether, due to the capacity issue, Manchester to/from London travel has changed much at all.
Sunak actually removed the Elizabeth line from the stats to justify that ridership was down
When the capacity argument is raised the government counter by saying Covid has changed train usage - which it has. My question to anyone who knows is - how has Covid changed the usage of Manchester to/from London ? I wonder whether, due to the capacity issue, Manchester to/from London travel has changed much at all.
Sunak actually removed the Elizabeth line from the stats to justify that ridership was down
That claim is thoroughly alarming, with major repercussions if it became public knowledge, not least because the UK has to supply the data to international bodies to assist in European and global comparisons. I wonder if it can be quite right.
I'm still trying to find my way around the available stats, but I think the Office of Rail and Road is the primary source. So I found their latest update here. There is certainly a lot there on caveats to the data caused by an issue with input Elizabeth Line data. However if I read it correctly - and I've only skimmed it - I think it is saying that the Liz line data may be over-estimating journeys, but the Liz line data is still included and they are advising caution pending a possible revision. Could this be what you refer to?
As it stands that data for year to March 23 shows total passenger numbers still down some 17% on the peak number (year to March 19). That is well below most European countries' levels; the last figures I saw (and I have the link somewhere) indicated passenger numbers returning to 2019 levels or even edging above them, I think Austria (with its excellent system which I use a lot) was one such. Since Europe does actually have internet, all the factors Sunak is citing such as work-from-home are just as much in play across the continent, so something else must be going on with the poor UK numbers. My best guess: strikes. Whatever the rights and wrongs of them, they will certainly have put a dent in the passenger numbers.
Again this is all part of what I have to get to grips with so your collective comments on this too would be most welcome.
But hasn't Elizabeth line just bastardised other lines ?
When I travel from Romford to Liverpool Street on the Elizabeth line, it just means one less journey on the Greater Anglia train a couple minutes later. Exact same journey but now added to the Elizabeth Line success stats.
I was originally against HS2, as I was under the impression that it was about speed of journey and considered that the environmental damage and loss of rare habitats, was too high a price to pay for a few minutes time saved.
I now believe that having started the project and already having destroyed rare habitats, it should be completed in its entirety, as originally planned. Not starting the line at Euston and not connecting the northern cities will be a huge waste and the environmental destruction will have been for nothing.
The problem in this country is that everything takes so long to complete. An example of this is Operation Brock in Kent, which is still being worked on, five years after it started. Having placed the removable concrete barrier on the hard shoulder initially, it has already taken 18 months to move it to the central reservation.
I recently had a meeting with National Highways and KCC Highways regarding the number of overnight closures on the M20, which sends HGVs through residential areas. NH advised me that there has been so much under-investment in our roads over many years, that there is a lot of work to be done to get our roads into a safe condition.
This country and in particular the midlands and north led the Industrial Revolution on the back of improvements to transport network. It seems a no-brainer that improving the infrastructure and connectivity will eventually pay for itself, and then some.
costs will always overrun if you take forever to get going and then don’t put in the money and resources to build it quicker because you are competing with other projects for those same resources.
the sooner we can help the north to contribute more the sooner it will ease the burden on London and it’s surrounds to keep funding them and drawing wealth and people away in order to afford doing so
I won't quote the whole post as it will clog up people's feed.
"People" don't know why the railway network in this country is so bad, and neither do they care to find out. They just know it is.
I know it's been mentioned by a few on here but the Transpennine Express encapsulates the problem/s quite well.
The delays and cancellations don't help and are what people notice on a day to day basis. It's not the rout cause of the problems though. It's not even a purpose built line, it's bits of 200 year old lines cobbled together.
The 3 "best" mainlines in England are nearly 200 year old and are totally unfit for the 21st century, because they were built in the early Victoria age.
As I get older and grumpier, things seem more obvious and inevitable. If you are to believe "experts" on everything, then we all live in a subjective world of figures plucked from the ether and molded into every graph, pie chart or soundbite. These are a politicians or a focus groups play things. I just get fed up with the inane chatter and just switch off.
All this palaver sanctions delay, obstruction and an end product of diddly squat for a lot of money.
If that's the case it will cost me an additional £300 to watch Charlton.
Well done sadiq and some people quired why I have an opinion of him living where I do.
I think if you read the piece it’s pretty clear that it’s not Sadiq Khan instigating this but the government insisting on cost savings as a requirement of the bail out to TfL of £3.6 billion during the pandemic.
If that's the case it will cost me an additional £300 to watch Charlton.
Well done sadiq and some people quired why I have an opinion of him living where I do.
I think if you read the piece it’s pretty clear that it’s not Sadiq Khan instigating this but the government insisting on cost savings as a requirement of the bail out to TfL of £3.6 billion during the pandemic.
I know whose behind it mate. It was muted from him months ago. He's the top man blame goes with the position.
Theres lots of ways to skin a cat and I will be utilising it.
But hasn't Elizabeth line just bastardised other lines ?
When I travel from Romford to Liverpool Street on the Elizabeth line, it just means one less journey on the Greater Anglia train a couple minutes later. Exact same journey but now added to the Elizabeth Line success stats.
Guess it depends how many users have just switched from other lines and how many have switched from the road (ie instead of getting cabs into town from Heathrow)
If that's the case it will cost me an additional £300 to watch Charlton.
Well done sadiq and some people quired why I have an opinion of him living where I do.
I think if you read the piece it’s pretty clear that it’s not Sadiq Khan instigating this but the government insisting on cost savings as a requirement of the bail out to TfL of £3.6 billion during the pandemic.
I know whose behind it mate. It was muted from him months ago. He's the top man blame goes with the position.
Theres lots of ways to skin a cat and I will be utilising it.
But clearly TFL is in desperate need of funding, it's a separate argument of who is to blame for that but regardless it's in a hole. So if the answer is to raise ticket prices who should foot that? Should it be Londoners who use it day in day out to get to and from work or should tourists have their subsidy cut? I know what I prefer.
If that's the case it will cost me an additional £300 to watch Charlton.
Well done sadiq and some people quired why I have an opinion of him living where I do.
I think if you read the piece it’s pretty clear that it’s not Sadiq Khan instigating this but the government insisting on cost savings as a requirement of the bail out to TfL of £3.6 billion during the pandemic.
I know whose behind it mate. It was muted from him months ago. He's the top man blame goes with the position.
Theres lots of ways to skin a cat and I will be utilising it.
But clearly TFL is in desperate need of funding, it's a separate argument of who is to blame for that but regardless it's in a hole. So if the answer is to raise ticket prices who should foot that? Should it be Londoners who use it day in day out to get to and from work or should tourists have their subsidy cut? I know what I prefer.
Or people out of town who come in and add millions to the economy... Some won't bother. I know what I prefer.... We shouldn't have to pay if TFL is so poorly run.
Comments
The project would've been completed, it would have been a fantastic infrastructure benefit to the country and a legacy for himself to enjoy. As it stands, all he'll have is the memory of his conference speech, where he reeled out a load of party pleasing alternative speil - most of which he admitted (to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2) were illustrative examples of what could / maybe / possibly / be done.
Primarily capacity on the WCML and improved interconnectivity between Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield which is currently dire.
It's a national disgrace to be honest. Not just to scrap it but the original plan, the PR, the building it backwards, I could go on.
If we are talking trains (and who doesn't want to talk trains) Intercity connections between cities. Part of the Leeds, and by default Sheffield, line to Nottingham is single track! As an example. Still 200 years later no one has built a railway between Leeds and Manchester.
Yes very Leeds centric but as someone that travels between "big" cities for work, if its not London, or via London, its awful.
Another real life example is its quicker and cheaper to get to to Cardiff, from Leeds, by flying via Amsterdam or Dublin.
If we are talking more generally integrate it so the buses leave when the train arrives etc.
Capacity is the key benefit. The additional speed is just a byproduct of modern technology. It annoys me when people say "we're spending all this money just to get to Birmingham 20 minutes quicker", as if the solution is to build a cheaper railway using 1900s standards.
- how do you feel about the latest decision to cut back the project and why?
Short sighted. It would have become an indispensable item of transportation infrastructure. We've already spent millions preparing for it - might as well make use of that sunk cost.
- how do you see the UK's transport situation overall and what do you think the priorities should be?
In London it's fantastic. UK-wide it is starting to feel a bit archaic compared to our European brothers. I wouldn't complain too much though. I live in Canada right now and the public transport here is almost non-existent.
- I think that the main presented argument that it was about increased capacity is probably right but there is a bigger reason...
- It is a huge vanity project. Everyone from Government ministers, to construction companies to individual workers wants to work on something spectacularly big. There's a lot of kudos in it. HS2 was widely cited as the biggest infrastructure project in Europe. That's what was wanted, a project to boast about, a project for a project's sake. Anyone who's worked in the north, however, will know that the big transport issue isn't how to get from north to south, it's how to get around while you're in the north. Indeed making it easier to get from north to south may well create a further drain on investment and skills from the north to the capital. There are dozens of potential projects that should have taken precedence over HS2. For my money, upgrading the laughably named Trans Pennine Express should have been the top priority.
Decision to cut back the project- That's a tough question. I don't actually think it should have been started in the first place. At least, not whilst there were more important things to do and not with such poor regard for wildlife.
- Once it had been started though, it probably wasn't worth stopping. My worry here, aside from the work that's been done and is now wasted, is what happens when there's major infrastructure projects in the future. I think what the decision to stop will do is increase prices in the future, because those investing and working on such projects will seek greater financial gain and guarantees of payment should the projects get stopped.
- Having said that, the idea to terminate the southern end at Old Oak Common is utter madness. If that's the best we were going to get, perhaps it was right to stop.
UK's transport situation overall- For the most part it's pretty dire. Transport is too expensive, too slow, too dirty, generally uncoordinated and very bad for the environment.
- Profiteers have been allowed ownership and/or control of big chunks of infrastructure and are seemingly more interested in milking the wallets of travellers, be they private drivers or passengers on public transport, than providing a service.
- There are some positives, Cross-rail and some of the city tram systems come to mind.
Priorities2 - short sighted political point scoring with no cost benefit due to budget being redistributed to other transport projects.
In comparison to China rolling out thousands of miles of high speed rail network in around a decade, this showsthe uk in a very poor light
3 - poor quality and expensive public transport plus minimal EV infrastructure is keeping too many people "addicted" to petrol/diesel cars.
Privatisation of buses and trains has lead to lack of infrastructure investment
Free bus transport for all is an obvious need.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66913117
Reading through all the responses as if they were focus group transcripts, I am surprised about one thing. The vast majority of you already understand more or less that the main reason to build HS2 is, or was, to boost capacity, and most of you have a good idea of what that means and why it's a problem currently. It's a surprise because a major criticism voiced of the project is that "it was originally sold on speed". Certainly I've seen lots of evidence of that on social media and in the comments sections, even in the FT, where you find a lot of comments about "all that money just to get business people to Birmingham 15 minutes quicker" followed by the occasional attempt from someone to explain the capacity objective.
However the difference here partly reflects the fact that it isn't really a focus group. Properly set up, a focus group consists of a random sample from a cross-section of the population; most of you though have answered because the topic interests you in some way, and that in turn means you've at least read a lot about it. If YouGov polled you guys for their tracker study, above, the results would be significantly different.
So my working assumption - which I'd welcome your opinion on - is that the negative poll numbers are indeed driven by people who have never really understood the "capacity" rationale. And I am not surprised they have not, because it has not been properly explained to them. That in turn is because "capacity" doesn't readily convert into snappy soundbites for lazy politicians or snappy headlines for lazy politicians; whereas "speed" does, oh yes, "400kms/hour, have that, you Frogs"
Do you think that is a fair assessment of what has brought public opinion to where it is (or at least wehre it was in May according to YouGov)? And am I right in thinking that there has been no highly visible effort to explain the real problem of capacity, either by HS2Ltd, or government ministers? That's currently my take on it, although I'm not suggesting that everything would be fine and dandy if only there had been a better communications strategy. I don't believe that, and not just because a couple of you have been kind enough to share some pro insights by direct message outlining a catalogue of cock-ups in various aspects of the project. But as I learnt years ago in advertising, if the general public misunderstand the message you sent out, it is your fault, not theirs.
Anyway I hope the thread rolls on, I'm sure there is more controversy to come... we've proved to admin that we can do it
I'm still trying to find my way around the available stats, but I think the Office of Rail and Road is the primary source. So I found their latest update here. There is certainly a lot there on caveats to the data caused by an issue with input Elizabeth Line data. However if I read it correctly - and I've only skimmed it - I think it is saying that the Liz line data may be over-estimating journeys, but the Liz line data is still included and they are advising caution pending a possible revision. Could this be what you refer to?
As it stands that data for year to March 23 shows total passenger numbers still down some 17% on the peak number (year to March 19). That is well below most European countries' levels; the last figures I saw (and I have the link somewhere) indicated passenger numbers returning to 2019 levels or even edging above them, I think Austria (with its excellent system which I use a lot) was one such. Since Europe does actually have internet, all the factors Sunak is citing such as work-from-home are just as much in play across the continent, so something else must be going on with the poor UK numbers. My best guess: strikes. Whatever the rights and wrongs of them, they will certainly have put a dent in the passenger numbers.
Again this is all part of what I have to get to grips with so your collective comments on this too would be most welcome.
I now believe that having started the project and already having destroyed rare habitats, it should be completed in its entirety, as originally planned. Not starting the line at Euston and not connecting the northern cities will be a huge waste and the environmental destruction will have been for nothing.
The problem in this country is that everything takes so long to complete. An example of this is Operation Brock in Kent, which is still being worked on, five years after it started. Having placed the removable concrete barrier on the hard shoulder initially, it has already taken 18 months to move it to the central reservation.
I recently had a meeting with National Highways and KCC Highways regarding the number of overnight closures on the M20, which sends HGVs through residential areas. NH advised me that there has been so much under-investment in our roads over many years, that there is a lot of work to be done to get our roads into a safe condition.
costs will always overrun if you take forever to get going and then don’t put in the money and resources to build it quicker because you are competing with other projects for those same resources.
the sooner we can help the north to contribute more the sooner it will ease the burden on London and it’s surrounds to keep funding them and drawing wealth and people away in order to afford doing so
"People" don't know why the railway network in this country is so bad, and neither do they care to find out. They just know it is.
I know it's been mentioned by a few on here but the Transpennine Express encapsulates the problem/s quite well.
The delays and cancellations don't help and are what people notice on a day to day basis. It's not the rout cause of the problems though. It's not even a purpose built line, it's bits of 200 year old lines cobbled together.
The 3 "best" mainlines in England are nearly 200 year old and are totally unfit for the 21st century, because they were built in the early Victoria age.
Well done sadiq and some people quired why I have an opinion of him living where I do.
All this palaver sanctions delay, obstruction and an end product of diddly squat for a lot of money.
Theres lots of ways to skin a cat and I will be utilising it.